A growing compilation of my own theological essays and commentaries and devotion also apologetic issues will be described as well.

Monday, February 12, 2018

miscellaneous creation info

After a couple of years of administating the facebook group "literal Fundamental Creationists" I have collected notes and links of added information. I focused on youtube links that were not on my normal channels and things I did not normally access. Enjoy!

e coli
by ikester7579
A_e_coliI was debating an atheist the other
day and they left a link to a site where they were doing a long-term
experiment. He said that because they were able to get 50,000
generations out of E coli, that proved evolution. In which I responded:
You still don’t get it. After 50,000 generations was the E coli still E
coli? Of course he knew where I was going with this and refused to
address the question.
Ignoring that evolution always misses steps
to actually proving itself does not make it true. There is a reason
that a person must first understand that there are no absolutes before
they can understand evolution. The reality of believing there are no
absolutes means truth becomes a huge grey area. And anyone can take an
idea like evolution and make it look true without it actually being
true.
The other problem associated with this, is that atheists
like to make micro and macro evolution sound like the same thing. Or
that micro to infinity proves macro. The problem with this logic is 2
fold.
If they are one in the same, why give them different names?
Claiming micro to infinity makes macro evolution leaves out one very
important step. And that is to know if there are limitations to micro
evolution that would keep it from equaling macro evolution. Because
unless this can be tested and observed a huge assumption is being made
that micro will = macro with no problems. That’s not science.
Assuming with no observation leaves a huge door open to be proven wrong.

One of the forefathers of the megachurch movement endorses a pro evolution ministry.
""A wise, constructive rapprochement between faith and science is one
of the world’s urgent needs, and this need will only intensify as the
global era raises a host of new ethical issues. Few people have the
expertise, wisdom, and prestige to make such a contribution. I welcome
BioLogos warmly.
" - Dr. Os Guinness, Author and Social Critic - See more at:
https://biologos.org/#sthash.cfOmWGt6.dpuf

RICHARD DAWKINS MAKES ANOTHER BLUNDER IN HIS DEFENSE OF FAIRY TALES (Friday Church News Notes, November 13, 2015, www.wayoflife.org,
fbns@wayoflife.org, 866-295-4143) - The following is excerpted from
“Richard Dawkins Chides a Real Scientist,” Ken Ham, Answers in Genesis,
Nov. 2, 2015: “On CNN, November 1, TV host Fareed Zakaria interviewed
atheist/religious zealot Richard Dawkins. And no surprise, Dawkins, in
his usual disparaging style, derided anyone who believes God created the
universe and all life and who reject the fairy-tale belief that all
life arose by natural processes. Dawkins particularly disparaged Dr. Ben
Carson, running for US President. In this interview, Dawkins made the
false claim (that he’s made many times) that ‘evolution is the bedrock
of biology and biology is the bedrock of medicine.’ He went on to say
this about Dr. Carson: ‘He clearly doesn’t understand the fundamental
theorem of his own subject. That is a terrible indictment.’ Actually, by
making such an ignorant and nonsensical statement, Dawkins is
disproving his own accusation! Obviously, Dr. Carson didn’t need to
believe in evolution to become a world-renowned pediatric neurosurgeon
with sophisticated skills at age 33, receive 67 honorary doctorate
degrees, separate conjoined twins, become a member of the Alpha Honor
Medical Society, be named to the Horatio Alger Society of Distinguished
Americans, be picked by Time magazine as one of the nation's 20 foremost
physicians and scientists, for the Library of Congress to select him as
one of 89 ‘Living Legends’ ... along with many other accomplishments.
How does that impressive list line up with what Richard Dawkins has
accomplished in this world? And if Dr. Carson can achieve all these
accomplishments without believing in evolution, what then does evolution
have to do with medicine? As I challenged TV’s Bill Nye ‘the Science
Guy’ (and I have also challenged Dawkins), name one technological
advancement (including one medical advancement) that could not have come
about without a belief in evolution? Well, there are no such examples.
Evolution is not the ‘bedrock’ of biology or medicine! Evolution is a
fairy tale, akin to Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs!”https://www.wayoflife.org/

So
it is my theory that in extension to the inclusion of evolution into
Christian theology the doctrine of atonement will suffer. The reason
is that an old earth means that there was death before the Fall making
death not the result of Man's sin, and blood not a real means of atoning
for that sin. Therefore evolutionary "christians" will want to veer
away from the the literal blood propitiation of our sins.
Tonight I
was looking through a systematic theology. "God, Man & Salvation" a
"biblical theology" of 3 Nazerene denomination theologians W.T.
Purkiser, Richard S. Taylor, and Willard H. Taylor.
I noticed this....
Creation
"While the account of creation in the bible is not mythological,
neither is it intended to be cosmological or scientific. It is not
designed to answer the question "Where did the world come from?'" pg. 56
"Wiley wrote: The best Hebrew Exegesis has never regarded the days of
genesis as solar days but as day periods of indefinite duratin..." pg 58
Atonement
"and to the Romans He writes that God put forward (proetheto) Christ
'as an expiation by his blood' 3:25;cf. 1 John 2:2." page 358
"Death in mankind's history thus stands as the symbol of the tragic alienation between God and man because of sin." pg. 389
"Other interpretative factors are part of the meaning of the cross, but
in this case Christ experience of death paradoxically declares that
through death we can be victorious. It has been said that "the death of
Christ transforms our thinking about death," Indeed it transforms our
understanding of our existence;" 389
"Paul and the author of Hebrews
emphasized that Christ acted in obedience to God's demands and in doing
so the benefits accrued to mankind. In the representative deed of the
cross Christ's obedience provided the possibility of our obedience and
salvation." pg. 389
"The second Adam by obedience regained for us
what was lost by the first Adam. Our obedience to the obedient son is
the hope of our salvation." pg. 391
"Expiation is not directed
chiefly toward the offended party. Rather it is directed towards that
which has caused the break down in relationship" pg. 396 "According to
these interpreters hilastrerion is not an act of placating an angry
wrathful deity but an act of covering sin or annulling it's guilt." pg
397
Now for those new to theology these quotes seem fine with just a little confusion. However the devil is in the details!
So the theologians deny the scientific accuracy of genesis 1 and assume the day is ok with old earth.
As I stated blood and death are a part of nature within evolution.
So there is nothing special to it and it makes you wonder why sin
requires death or why death has the ability to reconcile God and man's
relationship.
Bible believing evangelical scholars across the
spectrum have come to deny "expiation" as the proper translation in
Romans 3:25 and 1 John 2:2
Rom. 3:25 whom God hath set forth to be a
propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness
for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of
God;"
1 John 2:2 and he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
Propitiation appeases the wrath of God. Does God have wrath?
Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all
ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in
unrighteousness; "
Ephesians 2:1 And you hath he quickened, who were
dead in trespasses and sins; 2 wherein in time past ye walked according
to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of
the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: 3
among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts
of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and
were by nature the children of wrath, even as others."
Revelation
6:16 and said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from
the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the
Lamb: 17 for the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able
to stand?"
So then death is not a part of nature. Death is the penalty of sin and a sign of God's wrath!
Which is that which exalts the power of his grace!
Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and
death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have
sinned: 13 (for until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not
imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to
Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of
Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. 15 But
not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence
of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace,
which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. 16 And not
as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by
one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto
justification. 17 For if by one man’s offence death reigned by one; much
more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of
righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) 18 Therefore as
by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even
so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto
justification of life. 19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were
made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
BTW, In Jesus obedience we have our imputed righteousness. We are not
righteous on our own merits, we are righteous on Christ alone. And it
is in that imputed righteousness that we can live for Christ without
dead religion but in the spirit.
Romans 4: 6 Even as David also
describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth
righteousness without works, 7 saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities
are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. 8 Blessed is the man to whom
the Lord will not impute sin.
Romans 3:21 But now the
righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by
the law and the prophets; 22 even the righteousness of God which is by
faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there
is no difference: 23 for all have sinned, and come short of the glory
of God; 24 being justified freely by his grace through the redemption
that is in Christ Jesus:
Phil. 3:8 Yea doubtless, and I count all
things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my
Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them
but dung, that I may win Christ, 9 and be found in him, not having mine
own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the
faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith: 10 that I
may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of
his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death; 11 if by any
means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead. 12 Not as though
I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow
after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of
Christ Jesus. 13 Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but
this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and
reaching forth unto those things which are before, 14 I press toward the
mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.
Galatians 2:15 We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the
Gentiles, 16 knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the
law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus
Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by
the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be
justified. 17 But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we
ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of
sin? God forbid. 18 For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I
make myself a transgressor. 19 For I through the law am dead to the
law, that I might live unto God. 20 I am crucified with Christ:
nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life
which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who
loved me, and gave himself for me. 21 I do not frustrate the grace of
God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.
So we are saved by grace and not by law. The blood is where we get
our grace and it has to propitiate the wrath of God, because we are
sinners and our obedience is "dung" only his blood counts. But if blood
does not count salvation does not work.

In his review of Dennis Sewell's book The Political Gene, creation
scientist and author Dr. Jerry Bergman mentions one of the most
deplorable events in evolutionary history – the story of Ota Benga. A
pygmy from the Congo, Benga attracted a great deal of attention when he
was put on display at the Bronx Zoo. He eventually ended his life by
firing a bullet into his heart in 1916.
Promotional photo of Ota Benga on display at the Bronx Zoo in 1906. Ten years later he committed suicide
at the age of 32.Ota Benga and an orangutan of similar height were
placed inside a locked cage. Quite naturally, the display had people
asking if Ota Benga was a monkey or a man. The zookeeper answered that
he was a transitional form between man and monkey – the missing link.
Sewell's book points out that evolutionists defended the display by
noting that evolution is taught in the school textbooks and is, quote,
"no more debatable than the multiplication table."

African American clergymen complained to zoo officials about the
exhibit, saying, "The Darwinian theory is absolutely opposed to
Christianity, and a public demonstration in its favor should not be
permitted." But the New York Times disagreed, saying: "We do not quite
understand all the emotion which others are expressing in the matter. It
is absurd to … moan over the imagined humiliation and degradation Benga
is suffering. The pygmies ... are very low in the human scale…"
The tragic story of Ota Benga clearly reveals the stark contrast between
those who follow Christ and those who follow Darwin. Whose side are you
on?

rom CMI
Did Noah need oxygen above the mountains?
Ceinturion, wikimedia commons
HuibersArk
The replica ark that Dutchman Johan Huibers built.
by Don Batten
Question: If mountain climbers need oxygen tanks to climb Mount
Everest, how were Noah, his family, and the animals able to breathe on
the Ark when they were above the mountains (‘ ... and the mountains were
covered.’, Genesis 7:20)?
Answer: This question presupposes that
Mount Everest was the height it is now (8,848 m = 29,028 ft), and that
the air pressure would not have changed at that height above normal sea
level with the addition of the flood water.
Mount Everest was
not the height it is now during the Flood. Earth’s highest mountains
have fossils of sea creatures at their tops, showing they were once
under the sea. The possibilities are that the sea rose to cover the
mountains, or the mountains were once under the sea and have since risen
out of the sea, or a combination of the two.
Many creationist
scientists think that mountains such as the Himalayas were probably
built by catastrophic movement of the earth’s continental plates during
and after the Flood (see Q&A: Plate Tectonics). Measurements
indicate that the Himalayas are still rising. The rate of rise now
measured is just the remnant of the processes that occurred much faster
in the past.
Some mountains could have existed before the Flood, but none like the current Himalayas, Alps, or Andes in height.
Mountain building occurred as a part of the geologic processes that
deepened the oceans to take the waters off the land towards the end of
the Flood. Some mountains could have existed before the Flood, but none
like the current Himalayas, Alps, or Andes in height. In any case, there
is only enough water on all the earth to cover mountains about 3 km (2
miles) high, if all the ocean basins were raised. So, if the waters were
not 9 km deep, but much less, the question is no longer an issue.
Even if the flood waters were 9 km deep, would Noah and company have had trouble breathing?
Absolutely not. Air pressure is caused by the weight of air above the
point where the pressure is being experienced. If the water was 9
kilometres deep, then the air that was in that 9 kilometres deep volume
of what was atmosphere would have been pushed out and would then have
sat above the water at 9 kilometers above the earth’s former surface.
However, if we assume the worst case scenario of the radius of the
earth increasing by 9 km due to the water, the surface area of the earth
plus water would have been greater than the earth so that the weight of
air would have been spread over a bigger area so that the pressure
would have been less.
How much would the air pressure have been
reduced? Less than 0.3%. This is equivalent to standing on top of a 30-m
(100-ft) high building at sea level! There would also have been a
negligible effect on the pressure due to changes in the force of gravity
(which affects the weight of the air).
It is certain, therefore, that those on the Ark would have had no trouble breathing—without oxygen tanks.

Similarly, Mary Baker Eddy and a long series of cult leaders have also
claimed this. However, they had claimed that Scripture couldn’t be
understood as it appeared. Why not? Because Scripture is allegorical!
Instead, only they had the key to understand the Scriptures. Thus, these
leaders effectively built a wall between the Scriptures and the
faithful.
Biologos has done the same thing. They too have built
an insurmountable wall between Scripture and the Christian by claiming
Genesis 1-11 to be allegorical and non-historical. Why have they done
this? Because if Genesis is not historical, then they have succeeded in
making room for evolution in a Bible that can no longer contradict its
claims.
However, to remove the historical context is also to
remove any clarity about interpretation. Perhaps even worse, denying the
historicity of Genesis contradicts the rest of the Bible.
There
are many evidences that the Bible regards Genesis as historical. The
various genealogies extending back to Adam attest to its historicity.
Even the words of Jesus:
• Matthew 19:4-6 (ESV) He answered,
“Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them
male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and
his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one
flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has
[historically] joined together, let not man separate.”
Augustine warned about the possible effect of the pronunciations of the pundits of science of his day upon the faithful:
• Some of the weaker brothers and sisters, however, are in danger of
going astray more seriously when they hear these godless people holding
forth expertly and fluently on the “music of the spheres,” or on any
questions you care to mention about the elements of this cosmos. They
wilt and lose heart . . . and can scarcely bring themselves to touch the
volumes [Scripture] they should be devouring with delight . . .
[because] they have no time to be still (Psalm 46:11), and to see how
sweet the Lord is (Psalm 34:8). And that is why they are too lazy to use
the authority they have received from the Lord . . . . (Augustine
2002b, I.20.24).
Daniel Mann
UNDERSTANDING CREATION, JONAH, JOB, AND THE FLOOD AS HISTORY
Is the Bible historical or is it spiritual allegory? Of course, parts of the Bible are history, while
other parts are not. So then, how can we determine the historical from
the non-historical? Well, if we take the Bible seriously, we try to
determine how the Bible regards it various writings. We compare
Scripture with Scripture.

Let’s start with the Book of Jonah. Is it historical? Did a fish
actually swallow Jonah and vomit him up on a beach after three days? One
way to answer this question is to see how Jesus answered it. Evidently,
Jesus regarded Jonah as history:
• He answered, "A wicked and
adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given
it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For as Jonah was three days
and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be
three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. The men of
Nineveh will stand up at the judgment with this generation and condemn
it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and now one greater
than Jonah is here.” (Matthew 12:39-41; Mat 16:4; Luke 11:29-30)
Perhaps Jesus was referring to Jonah as an allegory? This doesn’t seem
possible. If Jesus believed that Jonah had not actually been three days
in a fish, then, to maintain the parallel, He didn’t believe that He too
would actually be three days “in the heart of the earth.”
Besides, Jesus doesn’t say, “According to the tale, Jonah was three days
and three nights in the belly of a huge fish.” Instead, He speaks as if
this actually happened.
Jesus also warned Israel that “Nineveh
will stand up at the judgment” of them. However, if all knew that Jonah
was simply parabolic or allegorical, they would have scorned Jesus: “As
it is fiction that Nineveh repented, so too is it fiction that Nineveh
‘will stand in judgment.’”
However, there was no such retort, as
appropriate as this retort would have been had Jonah been regarded as a
mere allegory or parable. Therefore, it seems that even the scholars at
Jesus’ time had also regarded Jonah as history.
Jesus regarded
the Book of Jonah as history. If we are followers of Jesus, then we are
constrained to also be followers of His thinking and reasoning. He
regarded Scripture as the undefiled Word of God (Matthew 5:16-18) and
submitted to it in all regards. Quoting Deuteronomy 8, He responded to
Satan:
• “Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God." (Matthew 4:4)
This means that we too must live by “every word” and to understand them
as Jesus did. If He regarded the first several chapters of Genesis as
history – and we find that the Apostles also regarded these chapters as
history – then we too are constrained to regard them as history.
How did Jesus regard the Creation Account? As historical? Evidently! He
based His teaching on marriage and divorce on the historicity of
Genesis 1 and 2:
• "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the
beginning the Creator 'made them male and female' [Gen. 1:26-27] and
said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be
united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh' [Gen. 2:24]? So
they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together,
let man not separate." (Matthew 19:4-6)
Jesus’ entire argument is based upon the history of God’s work:
• He created them,
• He made them one flesh,
• And “joined [them] together.”
If God had only figuratively (not historically) created and joined
them, then we would have every right to actually divorce as long as we
don’t figuratively divorce. Therefore, one who is contemplating divorce
could reason that, “I’ll divorce my wife, but I’ll remain married to her
figuratively, in my heart.” Of course, this is absurd, but this is
because a non-historical understanding of Jesus’ words is also absurd.
Instead, Jesus’ clear intent was to demonstrate that divorce is wrong
and that the Pharisees were wrong for justifying divorce.
Jesus
built His case on the common understanding that Genesis is history. If
Genesis hadn’t been widely regarded as history, the Pharisees could
easily have retorted, “Well, God didn’t actually join them together, so
we are not prohibited from actually divorcing our wives!” in which case,
Jesus’ argument would have completely collapsed.
This is not to
deny that Genesis 1 and 2 are difficult to interpret. However, if we
start with the conclusion that these chapters are not history – and also
that the New Testament’s interpretation of them shouldn’t guide our
interpretation (Scripture interpreting Scripture) - then we consequently
reject our most important interpretive guidelines and constraints.
Operating with this interpretive “freedom,” the door is opened to just
about any interpretation we’d like to paste on Genesis.
Did Paul
regard these chapters as teaching history (even if they use poetry and
theology)? Certainly, he understood that Adam was actually and
historically created first (1 Cor. 11:8-9), that it was the woman who
had been deceived (1 Timothy 2:13-14, referring to Genesis 3 as
history), and that Jesus was the Second Adam (1 Cor. 15:22). Had Adam
been a myth, then this would suggest that Jesus also had been a myth.
Is it important to know that Genesis teaches history? Of course, not
only is this question critical to interpretation, it is also critical to
theology. Why? History and theology are inseparable. If we take away
history, we also take away the theology based upon it. If Jesus hadn’t
historically died on the Cross, we could have no theology of the Cross
and of redemption. If Adam and Eve hadn’t actually rebelled against God
causing the Fall, then God’s evolutionary program of creation would have
been the problem and not our rebellion, undermining the theology of the
entire Bible.
Theistic evolutionists argue that it is only
because they have been able to “reconcile” evolution with the Bible that
many educated “Christians” have remained in the Church. However, this
suggests that God prefers a watered-down faith to no faith at all.
However, this faulty answer reminds us of His Letter to the Church at
Laodicea:
• “‘I know your works: you are neither cold nor hot.
Would that you were either cold or hot! So, because you are lukewarm,
and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth. For you say, I
am rich, I have prospered, and I need nothing, not realizing that you
are wretched, pitiable, poor, blind, and naked.” (Revelation 3:15-17)
Is the Book of Job purely allegorical/figurative or is it also
historical? Again, to answer this question, we need to see how the Bible
itself answers this question. Once again, the Bible regards the Book of
Job as history:
• “Even if these three men--Noah, Daniel and
Job--were in it, they could save only themselves by their
righteousness,” declares the Sovereign LORD…”as surely as I live,
declares the Sovereign LORD, even if these three men were in it, they
could not save their own sons or daughters. They alone would be saved,
but the land would be desolate.” (Ezekiel 14:14-16)
God regarded Job as an actual, historical person, just as much as Daniel and Noah. James also regarded him as historical:
• As you know, we consider blessed those who have persevered. You have
heard of Job's perseverance and have seen what the Lord finally brought
about. The Lord is full of compassion and mercy. (James 5:11)
James understood that God’s mercy to Job was a clear demonstration of
the fact that “The Lord is full of compassion and mercy.” If the Book of
Job had not been a matter of history, then this allegory would not have
provided evidence of the mercy of God. Allegories do not provide
evidence but illustration.
Many deny the historicity of a
worldwide flood that had destroyed all mankind apart from Noah and his
family. However, this account and the subsequent commentary bear all the
signs of actual history:
• The waters prevailed above the
mountains, covering them fifteen cubits deep. And all flesh died that
moved on the earth, birds, livestock, beasts, all swarming creatures
that swarm on the earth, and all mankind. Everything on the dry land in
whose nostrils was the breath of life died. He blotted out every living
thing that was on the face of the ground, man and animals and creeping
things and birds of the heavens. They were blotted out from the earth.
Only Noah was left, and those who were with him in the ark. (Genesis
7:20-23)
How does the rest of the Bible regard the historicity
of this account? We have already seen that Ezekiel regarded Noah as a
real person. Jesus also regarded the account of the worldwide flood as
history:
• “For as were the days of Noah, so will be the coming
of the Son of Man. For as in those days before the flood they were
eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day when
Noah entered the ark, and they were unaware until the flood came and
swept them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of Man.” (Matthew
24:37-39; Luke 17:27)
If Noah was a mere allegory, then Jesus’
return was also nothing more than allegory. The Book of Hebrews also
regards Noah and the flood as history:
• By faith Noah, being
warned by God concerning events as yet unseen, in reverent fear
constructed an ark for the saving of his household. By this he condemned
the world and became an heir of the righteousness that comes by faith.
(Hebrews 11:7)
Hebrews upholds Noah as an exemplar of the faith.
Had this account been just a myth, “Noah” could not be upheld along with
Abraham, Isaac, and Moses.
Peter invokes Noah and the flood as
history and theology to prove that we must take seriously God’s promise
of a future judgment:
• For if God did not spare angels when they
sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to chains of gloomy
darkness to be kept until the judgment; if he did not spare the ancient
world, but preserved Noah, a herald of righteousness, with seven others,
when he brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly; if by turning
the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes he condemned them to
extinction, making them an example of what is going to happen to the
ungodly…then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials, and to
keep the unrighteous under punishment until the day of judgment. (2
Peter 2:4-9)
Had these not been actual and historical events but
rather myths, Peter’s reasoning would have fallen apart. If these events
were merely empty myths about a judging God, then the future judgment
should also be regarded as a myth. However, Peter clearly believed that
these events really took place. He therefore concluded: “then the Lord
knows how to rescue the godly from trials, and to keep the unrighteous
under punishment until the day of judgment.” Peter couldn’t have
possibly drawn such a conclusion from myths.
An historical worldwide flood teaches important theological truths:
1. God judges.
2. God rescues those who are His.
3. We must become reconciled to Him and not to the philosophies of this day that offer their own variety of hope.
However, such theology is distasteful. Instead, many of today’s
“Christians” assuage their conscience with the belief that these are
just myths and that a loving God would never do such things to His
creation. However, we need only open our eyes to human history to
observe that our omnipotent God allows all manner of horrors to occur.
Let us therefore humble ourselves before the God of the Bible and walk in His light.

“Magicdirtism”
is a much superior and more descriptive term for what most people call
“evolution.” It is the idea that dirt did magic all by itself and turned
itself into people without the Creator God of the Bible. Evolutionists
use the term “evolution” to confuse the issue of what they really
think, and not allow people to comprehend how stupid the idea really
appears, if you think about it critically.
“Magicdirtism” is a
better term for the idea that dirt somehow did magic and turned itself
into people without a magician to do the magic. This avoids the
confusion that magicdirters create by using the term “evolution,” which
can be only change in species, and does not include abiogenesis." Ed garret

"Global warming is very much a creation-related issue. Mineral evidence
shows CO2 in the atmosphere before the Flood was about 15X greater than
today. Fossil plants show the avg global temp was about 10 warmer than
today, all of that warmth being at high latitudes and in the ocean.
I.e., the tropics weren’t hotter than today. The fossils also show that
the whole Earth was wetter and greener than today. In other words,
global warming happened in the pre-flood world, and it was a *good*
thing. So why should we fear it today? For details, see the ravings of a
creationist who thinks global warming is probably happening today …
again." http://creation.com/global-warming-facts-and-myths - Russ Humphreys

**The Hitler - Darwin - Evolution Parallel**
You'll have to click on the picture to see the whole thing. But it's well worth the read
Side note: Out of the nearly 25 years I have been doing this, I have
never see anyone make this comparison. And I am surprised I did not see
this before. I was debating the other day using this evidence and it
just clicked and I was like Dang. And you wonder why a lot of this stuff
was blamed on Christians? This was to throw us off of seeing the actual
truth. ~ Issac Bourne